dog vs. human or human vs. human?

This article was all about a dog whisperer named Cesar Millan. There was a lot of talk about presence; whether it’s regarding your arms, face, or overall body. The beginning of the article is describing Cesar’s experiences and how his presence can calm dogs and make them feel comfortable by letting them know that he’s not a threat. It’s amazing how a slight movement of your arm can show so much to another person (or dog).

The article goes on to talk about how Cesar was able to work with about 47 dogs at one one time. During this time he was able to show dogs that had attacked their owners and dogs that killed another dogs, that he was not the bad guy. He took control of the situation, not through aggression, but by understanding how the dogs were feeling. Since dogs are the only animals that actually learn and feed off of human movement, they are constantly reading and trying to understand their owners. I liked the example about the dog vs. the chimpanzee. It had to do with a person showing each animal three upside down cups, with only one containing food, and if this person pointed to the one that in fact contained food, a dog would realize and understand this concept every time while the chimpanzee would not. The ending about the child with autism was also very interesting. It was the same concept of the presence of dogs, but it also proved true with human vs. human interaction. The dance teacher, Tortora, said, "I'm standing above him, looking directly at him. I am very symmetrical. So I'm saying to him, I'm stable. I'm here. I'm calm. I'm holding him at the knees and giving him sensory input. It's firm and clear. Touch is an incredible tool. It's another way to speak." By creating stability and comfort through her presence, Tortora was able to get through to this child like no one else could.

"You practice exercise and affection. But you're not practicing exercise, discipline, and affection. When we love someone, we fulfill everything about them. That's loving. And you're not loving your dog." This says that you must love and care for your dog or loved one, but you also must discipline to a certain extent. You don't want to be like Cesar and have the idea that the woman is supposed to do everything in a relationship, with not even love as a return, and that's just how it's supposed to be. But you also don't want to be like the woman who allowed her dog to attack her son, with no discipline towards the dog, but if it had been in reverse the child would be punished. It's all about finding that happy medium.

I think that the overall objective of the article was to realize how much the little details count. Dogs read us just as we, as humans, read other humans. It's all about knowing how to present yourself in a manner that is non-threatening and at a common ground. Cesar was brilliant at finding this equilibrium with dogs, but not so much for his own wife. And then there was mother who could nurture and care for her dog that was once tortured, but couldn't find it in herself to care for her own son.